Who needs fact anyway

Buckle your seatbelts folks because we’re about to take a wild, four-year ride through the land of historical revisionism, across the swamp of despair, to the fairy princess castle (the Brothers Grimm sort, not Disney) where the orange child hast crowned himself king.

I’m not quite sure where to start. The fact that multiple intelligence agencies have accused Russia of interfering in our elections—something Senators McCain and Graham, such obvious Obama chums, want to investigate—and the President-elect responds with, “I don’t believe it?” Or perhaps the ridiculous Pizzagate nonsense that General Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor, and his son negligently promoted on social media, culminating in a deranged man shooting up the accused D.C. pizza shop? Or maybe Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, who also happens to be the CEO of Exxon. Oil and gas obviously qualifies someone to handle delicate international agreements and affairs, such as preventing climate change.

Or maybe the fact that the so-called “alt-right” (read: neo-Nazis) is undertaking the revisionist project of fashioning their white supremacist ideals into bite-sized morsels meant for the mainstream. And like an over-zealous American shopping the Twinkie aisle at Wal-Mart, the media is eating it up.

Worry not friends. According to our President-elect, “I’m, like, a smart person.”

When I drive home to D.C. from Durham, I generally listen to the radio. There’s a 50-mile stretch on I-85 though North Carolina and Virginia where one’s choices are Christian rock, country, or Hannity. Hannity, the Prince of historical revisionism, likes to weave a tale about how Islam is taking over America and terrorists lurk around every block. Don’t try telling him that you’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than die at the hands of “radical Islamic terror.” Hannity and his FOX friends don’t espouse factually verifiable claims; they preach a “Handmaid’s Tale” version of America meant to make people vote with fear instead of reasoned analysis.

Conservatives are obviously not the only people to fall for distorted visions of reality; liberal sources can peddle their own version of truth to the masses as well. It’s one of the reasons why so many of us were shocked that Donald Trump became president. Though conservatives are generally more likely to do so, liberals can also fall for fake news. My favorite that recently circulated was “With a Stroke of His Pen President Obama Permanently Protects Planned Parenthood,” written by the clearly reliable source “Rmuse.” Digging in even remotely revealed that while Obama did indeed sign an executive order proposing a rule change, there is nothing that can permanently protect Planned Parenthood, despite my wishes to the contrary. Moral of the story? Liberals aren’t immune to the scourge of fake news and historical revisionism that often comes with it.

What happens when we lose all semblance of fact? What kind of era are we entering when people are more likely to read—and believe—stories published by Politicus USA or InfoWars than by the New York Times or Wall Street Journal?

If we can’t rely on the news to give us accurate accounts of reality, we have little means of holding public figures accountable. If more people read and share fake stories about how Hillary Clinton endorsed Donald Trump for president than real stories about Trump’s billion-dollar loss on his tax returns, we are driving good journalism and reporting into oblivion. I don’t want to live in a world where the story with the most bombastic headline, despite being packed with distortions and falsehoods, is the one most read.